Each time the answer comes up the same, even in a test with much less accuracy, you improve the chances it's the right answer.
Throw some statistical analysis at it and come up with a way to combine the tests you have into one probability, which will be higher than all the probabilities you got from the measurements.
Unless the tests disagree, and then you're talking a homework problem.
Snark aside, there are problems with making the illegality of a recording depend on what you plan to do with the recording later on. Like, if you intend to blackmail the person when you make the recording, but later change your mind, that's illegal. But if you don't intend to blackmail when you make the recording, and then change your mind and actually do it, that's not illegal.
That's not a problem. It's ironic, but it's legitimate law. The intent is what's aggravating the situation, not the recording. If you just make recording illegal, then innocuous errors become crimes. But if you make intent illegal, then you can try a person for doing something wrong.
I can record you on a phone saying something that means nothing to me. Then later I can find out from the TV that you told the police you weren't downtown, and I can remember you told me on the phone you were downtown. Now I can blackmail you. And while I'm using the recording to blackmail you, the act of recording it wasn't part of the progress of the crime of blackmailing you.
But let's get melodramatic and introduce a gun to make it clearer: Using your gun to kill someone is probably manslaughter. Buying a gun to kill someone is proof of murder. Committing manslaughter and then being accused of buying the gun to do it? You're going to want a distinction there between buying with intent and buying without intent.
Same deal here. Although buying a gun intending to kill someone and then not doing it won't get you jailed, but recording someone intending to blackmail them and then not doing it might (although that's probably just a court case away from not being true any more).
It's because you're standing on the sidelines watching the chaos and thinking it's not your fight when you should be in the middle of it holding ground.
Politics is like the inverse of the Heisenberg principle. If all you do is observe it, you know exactly what is going to happen.
I mean, the point of a hard drive is to have a filesystem on a peripheral bus.
But if you're going to be soldering things to the board, why not just put them on the memory bus and use a flash file system?
If you can do that, going through the SATA bus means you have to have a SATA bus you otherwise wouldn't need, and a couple of layers of data packaging and transfer. Slower, more complex, more stuff to implement. But you can use an OS that doesn't understand FFS (but really, is that likely?)
This thing only makes sense in two cases:
1. you don't have a memory bus (don't ask me, it's just a consideration)
2. SATA thumb drive (which I just noticed CeruleanDragon just posted above me.
No, this makes it illegal to record someone intending to (e.g.) blackmail them.
Meaning you can be busted before you even threaten them with blackmail, if it can be proved that was your intent. And the situation can be obvious enough that your only intent could be blackmail. Or you could be recorded saying that's why you were doing it. Or you could confess.
It's not a bullshit charge. Doing bad things is bad. The law wants you to know that.
But driving a car isn't invading someone else's privacy. Recording them without their knowledge in a situation where they have an expectation of privacy is.
See, this is why we have courts and case law. So we can focus on the case and not make ourselves crazy with wild speculation about different cases.
Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.
The larger world defeats this by not drinking the water other people are washing their pustules in.
And come to think of it, pretty much any skin disease that makes you scratch at it is trying to get you to spread it to more skin, so that's a behavioral modification, albeit not a brain-control mechanism per se.
The fungus evolved to survive in that climatic condition, as well as when the ant performs the necessary behavior.
Future mutations may allow the ant to clamp 20 cm up the stalk, or in a 32 C environment. Or future mutations of the ants may delete a key signalling chemical the fungus was using, and wipe it out from lack of victims.
Ant brains are very tiny, and the control and regulation mechanisms in them are simple. Human brains are immense, complex, and very hard to control. A fungus could make it fuzzy or twitchy, but to actually alter a behavior to its own ends is unlikely times ten to the fifteenth power.
There are about 1.5 million kinds of fungi, many of which will infect humans (basically move in and treat us like a tree root). They can live in us, but they don't particularly get anything out of us evolutionarily until we die and they can become spores as our corpses dessicate. Which they're content to wait for, as long as we haven't developed anything to kill them outright that might result in superiority of mutations that (a) don't die from our medicine and (b) make us reject medicine entirely. (Maybe scientologists and christian fundamentalists have a brain fungus. It would explain a lot.)
The really interesting thing is that while the spores are contagious (it's how we get infected), the living form of the fungi are generally not. So your nephew most likely can't infect anyone by contact.
They don't care what you bought and sold, they want to know you did it and how much you made from it.
Then they want you to add that to your AGI and pay tax on it.
If you buy a virtual item for real money, then sell it for more real money, you are legally required to report the difference as income to the IRS.
Bartering virtual items (gold, swords, etc.) for each other is no different. You take the value you got for it, subtract the value you originally paid for it, and that's your income from the trade, which you have to report (in dollars, not quatloos) on a 1099-B for the year you made the trade. The tricky part is defining the value of something you've never seen traded for real items.
Then maybe instead of adding another eleven bogus skill bullets to your resume you should make room for a paragraph about what a good guy you are despite that one time you knocked up the neighbor girl.
As for my authority, it's coming along fine. Yours is probably in the mail.
And what I was allowing myself to be wrong about was not the point of the discussion. It was an aside, indicating that the point might be moot, if the US doesn't have to do anything but call the Australian po-po.
It's a table lookup where the things you look up in the table are easily-solved algebraic equations across the small domain of the single table entry, instead of a continuous model in differential equations across the entire state space of the table.
The thing that can solve the continuous model in differential equations across the entire state space is a supercomputer. The thing that can chop the continuous model up into a table of simple algebraic equations is also a supercomputer. The thing that can look simple equations up in the table and solve them needs only about the power of a smartphone.
And it's not unlikely it can do it in real-time, but I'm pretty sure nobody's done the testing to do it in real-time in a safety-critical system, so implying that you can use your smartphone to control anything in your car other than the entertainment system is completely naff.
Slashdot Mirror
uncertainty.
Each time the answer comes up the same, even in a test with much less accuracy, you improve the chances it's the right answer.
Throw some statistical analysis at it and come up with a way to combine the tests you have into one probability, which will be higher than all the probabilities you got from the measurements.
Unless the tests disagree, and then you're talking a homework problem.
Snark aside, there are problems with making the illegality of a recording depend on what you plan to do with the recording later on. Like, if you intend to blackmail the person when you make the recording, but later change your mind, that's illegal. But if you don't intend to blackmail when you make the recording, and then change your mind and actually do it, that's not illegal.
That's not a problem. It's ironic, but it's legitimate law. The intent is what's aggravating the situation, not the recording. If you just make recording illegal, then innocuous errors become crimes. But if you make intent illegal, then you can try a person for doing something wrong.
I can record you on a phone saying something that means nothing to me. Then later I can find out from the TV that you told the police you weren't downtown, and I can remember you told me on the phone you were downtown. Now I can blackmail you. And while I'm using the recording to blackmail you, the act of recording it wasn't part of the progress of the crime of blackmailing you.
But let's get melodramatic and introduce a gun to make it clearer: Using your gun to kill someone is probably manslaughter. Buying a gun to kill someone is proof of murder. Committing manslaughter and then being accused of buying the gun to do it? You're going to want a distinction there between buying with intent and buying without intent.
Same deal here. Although buying a gun intending to kill someone and then not doing it won't get you jailed, but recording someone intending to blackmail them and then not doing it might (although that's probably just a court case away from not being true any more).
No, doing illegal things is against the law; it has nothing whatever to do with good and bad
You apparently don't vote hard enough.
It's because you're standing on the sidelines watching the chaos and thinking it's not your fight when you should be in the middle of it holding ground.
Politics is like the inverse of the Heisenberg principle. If all you do is observe it, you know exactly what is going to happen.
What is with the Australians? This is just the latest in a long line of this sort of shit.
People seem to think Australians are all cool, like Crocodile Dundee and Kylie Minogue.
Just remember where Rupert Murdoch came from.
The government can have control of my bicycle when they pry it from my cold, dead cleats.
Guess who invented money, and keeps you chasing it while they pocket what you spend trying to get it.
I mean, the point of a hard drive is to have a filesystem on a peripheral bus.
But if you're going to be soldering things to the board, why not just put them on the memory bus and use a flash file system?
If you can do that, going through the SATA bus means you have to have a SATA bus you otherwise wouldn't need, and a couple of layers of data packaging and transfer. Slower, more complex, more stuff to implement. But you can use an OS that doesn't understand FFS (but really, is that likely?)
This thing only makes sense in two cases:
1. you don't have a memory bus (don't ask me, it's just a consideration)
2. SATA thumb drive (which I just noticed CeruleanDragon just posted above me.
Dunno, but I bet we see appeals from those states to federal courts. Especially for the interstate cases.
No, this makes it illegal to record someone intending to (e.g.) blackmail them.
Meaning you can be busted before you even threaten them with blackmail, if it can be proved that was your intent. And the situation can be obvious enough that your only intent could be blackmail. Or you could be recorded saying that's why you were doing it. Or you could confess.
It's not a bullshit charge. Doing bad things is bad. The law wants you to know that.
But driving a car isn't invading someone else's privacy. Recording them without their knowledge in a situation where they have an expectation of privacy is.
See, this is why we have courts and case law. So we can focus on the case and not make ourselves crazy with wild speculation about different cases.
And that, it turns out, is how science works.
Nobody believes something until it fits the data.
As opposed to that other thing, whatchamacallit, "faith."
Hey, if you could install a brain fungus in 20% of the people that would make them vote for your plutocratic ideal without knowing about it, you would.
precious bodily fluids in any of this?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneralRipper
The larger world defeats this by not drinking the water other people are washing their pustules in.
And come to think of it, pretty much any skin disease that makes you scratch at it is trying to get you to spread it to more skin, so that's a behavioral modification, albeit not a brain-control mechanism per se.
But it's logical.
The fungus evolved to survive in that climatic condition, as well as when the ant performs the necessary behavior.
Future mutations may allow the ant to clamp 20 cm up the stalk, or in a 32 C environment. Or future mutations of the ants may delete a key signalling chemical the fungus was using, and wipe it out from lack of victims.
And you probably won't.
Ant brains are very tiny, and the control and regulation mechanisms in them are simple. Human brains are immense, complex, and very hard to control. A fungus could make it fuzzy or twitchy, but to actually alter a behavior to its own ends is unlikely times ten to the fifteenth power.
There are about 1.5 million kinds of fungi, many of which will infect humans (basically move in and treat us like a tree root). They can live in us, but they don't particularly get anything out of us evolutionarily until we die and they can become spores as our corpses dessicate. Which they're content to wait for, as long as we haven't developed anything to kill them outright that might result in superiority of mutations that (a) don't die from our medicine and (b) make us reject medicine entirely. (Maybe scientologists and christian fundamentalists have a brain fungus. It would explain a lot.)
The really interesting thing is that while the spores are contagious (it's how we get infected), the living form of the fungi are generally not. So your nephew most likely can't infect anyone by contact.
The first exploit that prevents is the installing of Quicktime.
They don't care what you bought and sold, they want to know you did it and how much you made from it.
Then they want you to add that to your AGI and pay tax on it.
If you buy a virtual item for real money, then sell it for more real money, you are legally required to report the difference as income to the IRS.
Bartering virtual items (gold, swords, etc.) for each other is no different. You take the value you got for it, subtract the value you originally paid for it, and that's your income from the trade, which you have to report (in dollars, not quatloos) on a 1099-B for the year you made the trade. The tricky part is defining the value of something you've never seen traded for real items.
Then maybe instead of adding another eleven bogus skill bullets to your resume you should make room for a paragraph about what a good guy you are despite that one time you knocked up the neighbor girl.
They aren't using it against you. They're just selecting the person sitting next to you and wishing you luck in your future endeavors.
Should you be rewarded with a job over someone who didn't get busted for shoplifting from the Circle-K?
But has Sweden been involved in releasing NATO secrets to NATO's enemies?
Because that steps over the line between neutral sanctuary and active combatant.
If the data ends up being served from the Swedish Parliament, it may be immune from the Swedish courts, but they won't be the ones trying to stop it.
Ask Mr. Rushdie about Fatwas.
As for my authority, it's coming along fine. Yours is probably in the mail.
And what I was allowing myself to be wrong about was not the point of the discussion. It was an aside, indicating that the point might be moot, if the US doesn't have to do anything but call the Australian po-po.
CUDA isn't supercomputing. CUDA is more like super-doopercomputing. And it's a fucking crime that nVidia isn't doing better in the market with it.
It's a table lookup where the things you look up in the table are easily-solved algebraic equations across the small domain of the single table entry, instead of a continuous model in differential equations across the entire state space of the table.
The thing that can solve the continuous model in differential equations across the entire state space is a supercomputer. The thing that can chop the continuous model up into a table of simple algebraic equations is also a supercomputer. The thing that can look simple equations up in the table and solve them needs only about the power of a smartphone.
And it's not unlikely it can do it in real-time, but I'm pretty sure nobody's done the testing to do it in real-time in a safety-critical system, so implying that you can use your smartphone to control anything in your car other than the entertainment system is completely naff.